The confessions do not offer technical ‘repetition from Scripture’ in a literal sense. Rather, they draw lines and show their inner relationships. Many dangers are implied in such lines and combinations, and biblicists of all kinds preferred to limit themselves to what the Westminster Confession calls ‘expressly set down in Scripture,’ avoiding the ‘consequences’. They wished to keep within the sharp limits of that which was regarded as explicit biblical testimony, preferably remaining within its very terminology. In fact, Scripture itself becomes a system of truth with such a biblicism; not a single truth needs to be added. However, the legitimacy of seeking to understand the unity and coherence of the message of salvation should be recognized. This attempt to undersatnd is in contrast to a ‘sacrifice of the intellect’, whereby the ‘object’ - as an irrational, incoherent, and contingent datum - is placed over against a ‘subject’ who must blindly accept this datum without true human affinity and digestion and without the ‘amen’ of faith.